Lee points out an interesting conundrum between genetics, homosexuality, and morality.

Coming from a Catholic, all-boys school, I remember that we were taught the difference between orientation and preference. What a paltry way to live for gay men: denying their orientation on account that their preferences are still wired into will instead of something they naturally do.

It’s the same as saying that gay men are free to love other men but it is evil for them to physically express these affections through sex.

First of all, whoever said that homosexuality was immoral? The Churches that cannot accept it? Does that make all gay men and women immoral by nature? Born into Hell, lovely. Next, whoever said that homosexual relationships are damaging to society? A direct damage to society? What? Because they can’t rear children, (Ayn Rand thinks them disgusting.) and thus unable to carry on the procreative role of the family in society’s foundation?

But that is not the real problem.

Lee takes one step forward and wonders how things would be if the sexual attraction towards children (pedophilia) is also genetically predisposed. Would it make it immoral? Perhaps not, on account of genetics as something that precludes free will… But should it remain illegal? Yes. Pedophilia is a direct harm to society. Het or homo, it is harmful.

If the pedophiles get the excuse to feel the way they do, that’s fine, but it gives them no legitimacy to damage our children’s well-beings, parental or personal consent notwithstanding. True, we might end up “depriving their rights” and marginalizing them, but society, as a body of a decision-making populace (either through a true democracy or through the republic) will decide just where the lines are drawn.

The wheel will keep on going round about this, I think. But for now (and for the foreseeable forever) the pedos and pederasts can wait until the young ‘uns are eighteen.